UNLIKE Mike Russell I do not see any advantage, at this point of transition to Brexit implementation, in continuing the bemoan the UK Government’s continuing refusal to engage in meaningful discussion with Holyrood. It may, in his judgement, serve to increase a sense of grievance and thus to further the cause of independence, but it could equally lead to a sense of helplessness or even despair in the absence of any alternative course of action. Better, surely, to face up to the facts, however unpalatable?

The Conservatives, with no little help from the Labour and Liberal parties, have just been given “carte blanche” by the UK electorate to forge ahead with Brexit on the back of a renewed and strengthened mandate. Moreover, the Sewell Convention, designed to protect devolved areas, has recently been proven not to be worth the paper it is written on, and Lord Keen of Elie has stated quite categorically that while the UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not. So why continue to beat our collective heads against this particular brick wall (Frozen out of our own future, January 19)?

READ MORE: Brexit: Scottish Government frozen out of Westminster talks

I strongly believe that our government at Holyrood should now withdraw from any Brexit discussions with the UK Government. It simply makes no sense. Why risk being sucked into shoddy compromises against the wishes of the Scottish people? This does not mean that every attempt at a “power grab” or attacks on human rights issues should not be fought tooth and nail in the courts or on the streets, but it does mean that we offer no more hostages to fortune (eg the badly advised “single market/customs union” option, which was surely a case of unnecessarily premature capitulation?)

I look forward, fundamentally, to a complete change of task by the SNP leadership, who have appeared content to rest in the doldrums and react to events in very piecemeal fashion. Such tactics are now rendered null and void. Democracy in the UK has now failed Scotland. Resistance and defiance are not legitimate. From the workers at St Andrew’s House engaged in Brexit preparation, now no longer able to act as the “servants o’ twa maisters”, to the workers at Faslane and Kinloss contemplating an independent Scotland, the fight-back for Scotland’s survival must be inclusive, united and led from the top. We await instructions.

Joan S Laverie
Edinburgh

I AM Intrigued by Andy Wightman’s article in Friday’s National (Scotland’s tax system must be free from grip of big business, January 17). There is a lot of truth and sense in it. Indeed, the present business rating system is antiquated and unfit for purpose. I do agree that setting this tax remotely is nonsense, and that it ought to be organised at local level, where local prevalent trading conditions are known and understood.

I further understand that a lot has been done recently to alleviate pressure on small businesses, lowering their rate or in some cases cancelling it altogether. All this is noble, but it fails to address the real root of the problem, which is that it is a fundamentally flawed tax. This is not surprising when you consider its provenance.

READ MORE: Andy Wightman: Scotland’s tax must be free from grip of big business

It is a cousin of the domestic Council Tax, which was a hastily cobbled-together answer to the hated poll tax, in the 1990s. This was supposed to have been radically overhauled by the SNP some years ago, but so far has not been. It is an unfair tax, based on notional property value.

Similarly with the business rate. Andy Wightman mentions other countries, but he does not say why this levy works properly in, for example, France, or indeed as far afield as Canada. In France, it is levied by the Conseil Muncipal, thus not remotely in Paris; but, much more importantly, it is a tax on turnover, not on property location.

Now, this is really the nub of the issue. It therefore operates exactly as PAYE. Big multiples will, by definition, pay a larger contribution, but it benefits small business enormously. This is clearly the change that needs to be made here.

Friends of ours, operating a family-run toy shop in northern Brittany explained this very fair system to me. When they started up some years ago they were liable to no rate at all, as the municipality accords start-up business a three-year “cushion” in order to establish themselves.

Thereafter, they contribute according to turnover, meaning, of course, that in times of brisk trading – holidays, tourist season, Christmas, etc – their contribution rises in direct proportion to the profits made, whilst in low times, in order to avoid them going “to the wall”, their contribution can lower to zero. It is thus flexible, responsive and logical. Their business has flourished and become established in this town, and is now is tourist “must see”.

Could we learn anything from all of this? Sure, but will we? Ah hae ma doots.

Brian York
via email